This is my next planned lens to get... While my camera fund is spent getting the 5D3 recently, this is definitely next on my list. I had the original 100mm Canon Macro and sold it to fund the 100-400, but really want the IS on it.

Plus the 100mm now becomes well 100mm for me, when before it was ~160mm..

I've got the 90mm Tamron Macro... If you can't afford the 100L, I've been pleased with the Tamron. It is a dedicated macro lens for me as I have the 135L if I want portraits. AF is decent, but I tend to do live view manual focus for macro anyway. It's very sharp. I'm sure it compares to the 100L in IQ.

I've owned the non-L version of the lens many, many years... wonder lens. I've never thought of upgrading to L because I couldn't imagine a sharper lens, and to me, the IS hold little value as nearly all macro must really be done on a tripod...

I'm curious about the difference the rounded aperture blades of the L makes - I can't say I've ever been bothered with the non-L's effect, but it would be interested to see an A - B comparison between the lenses that highlights this difference.

This lens is outstanding for macro, I just can't say enough good things this about it. The bokeh is outstandingly creamy. And wow is it sharp in macro and with close subjects. However it isn't as sharp as you get past 10 feet. I tried shooting people on a stage and some landscapes with this lens, and found it to only be about as sharp as the 24-105mm f/4L at the same aptreture and focal length.

While I have'd used them yet, I wouldn't be surprised if the 70-200 f/2.8L and 135 f/2L would be a little sharper for longer distance work.

However you have to ask just how much sharpness you really need, and for all my applications the 100mm f/2.8L is more than good enough even at longer focus distances.

Anybody here owning 100L and 135L?Comparison of my copies make clear winner 135 @ F2.8. Do you have any opposite experience?(Of course comparison is done on NON-macro shots...)

I have them both and love them both, but I don't think I've ever made a direct comparison (I probably have a slight bias in favor of the 135 but I'm not sure I have anything to back it up). In what way(s) do you think the 135 is the "clear winner"?

I use it on a 5DIII...I was hesitant to buy a $1000 (when I bought it) lens that was made of plastic...but I there is no looking back...It is one of the SHARPEST (if not THE sharpest) lenses I own..(check my list ...that is saying something)...Just like justin...every time I shoot something with it ...I put the images up on the screen and I am bowled over with the sharpness...Great lens..oh yeah...hey ...it shoots macro too, I am told!?!?!?!?! LOL!